France v. Shinn

6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Kory King France, No. CV-20-08075-PCT-DLR 10 Petitioner, ORDER v. David Shinn, et al., 13 Respondents.

16 Before the Court are Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and United States Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns’ Report and Recommendation (“R&R”).

18 (Docs. 1, 8.) The R&R recommends that the Court deny the Petition. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R and that failure to file timely objections could be considered a waiver of the right to obtain review of the R&R. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). No party filed objections, which relieves the Court of its obligation to review the R&R. Id.; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.”). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is well-taken.

28 IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Burns’ R&R (Doc. 8) is ACCEPTED.

1 || Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is DENIED and DISMISSED 2|| WITH PREJUDICE.

3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability and leave to 4|| proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are DENIED because dismissal of the Petition is || justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling || debatable.

7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall terminate this case.

8 Dated this 28th day of January, 2021. ll {Z, 12 _- Ae 13 Upited States Dictic Judge _2-